A “just war” is a concept that goes back to classical and medieval philosophy, and it’s used to determine when a nation or state has a right to go to war and how it should conduct itself during the conflict. The idea is to ensure that war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, which are usually split into two categories: ‘jus ad bellum‘ (the right to go to war) and ‘jus in bello‘ (right conduct within war).

1. Jus Ad Bellum:
   
   • Just Cause: War is only permissible to confront a real and certain danger.
   • Competent Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
   • Comparative Justice: The injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
   • Right Intention: The intention must be to secure a just peace for all involved.
   • Last Resort: War can only be used after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
   • Probability of Success: There must be a reasonable chance of success.
   • Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
     
2. Jus In Bello:
   
   • Distinction: Combatants and non-combatants must be distinguished. Actions should only be directed towards enemy combatants.
   • Proportionality: The force used must be proportional to the harm caused by the enemy.
   • Military Necessity: Military action can only be taken if it is necessary to achieve a military objective.
   • Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War: POWs must be treated fairly and humanely.
   • No Means Malum in Se: Weapons and tactics must not be “evil in themselves”. These include those that cause unnecessary suffering, such as biological or chemical weapons.

Examples of what some consider just wars include World War II, when Allied forces fought against the Axis powers who were committing mass atrocities, and the American Civil War, which was fought to end slavery.

---

Israel is not waging a just war

Israel is not waging a just war. That’s why men and women of goodwill must oppose it.

The war declared by Israel against Hamas does not fulfill any of the ‘jus ad bellum‘ criteria for a just war. Hamas is not a competent authority representing the Palestine people. However, Israel is waging war against all Palestinians in Gaza (and in the West Bank since before October 7). The Palestinian right of self-determination in their occupied land is not a “real and certain danger” to the Jewish people, but only to the Zionist supremacists. The true intention of the war effort is not to secure peace through right human relations with the Palestinians, but to ethnically cleanse Palestinians “from the river to the sea,” as evidenced in the criminal collective punishment of Gaza. Moreover, peaceful negotiations have not been exhausted, there is nil probability that anti-Zionistic terrorism will be eradicated in the region, and the current “exchange rate” of 100 to 1 Palestinians killed relative to the October 7 terrorist attack is disproportionate. True, civilians were killed in WW-II as unintended collateral damage, but not in a 100:1 proportion, a disproportionate rate increasing every day.

Therefore, based on the principles of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance of success, and proportionality, we must conclude that Israel’s actions towards Hamas do not justify this war. Recapitulating,

1. Hamas is not a competent authority: This criterion demands that war can only be waged by a legitimate and recognized authority. Hamas, as an organization, does not adequately represent the Palestinian people.
   
2. Comparative justice is absent: The right of Palestinians to self-determination is not a real and certain danger to the Jewish people, thus questioning the just cause for war.
   
3. Right intention is not present: The true intention is not peace but rather the displacement of the Palestinians, which would violate the criterion of right intention.
   
4. Peaceful negotiations have not been exhausted: The principle of last resort requires that all non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. This is evidently not the case.
   
5. There is little probability of success: The eradication of anti-Zionist sentiment and actions in the region is unlikely, thus failing the criterion of reasonable chance of success.
   
6. The response is disproportionate: The principle of proportionality demands that the violence used in war must be proportional to the injury suffered. The high casualty rate among Palestinians compared to Israelis demonstrates a lack of proportionality.
   

For all these reasons Israel is not waging a just war. But there is a more fundamental reason: this war is simply not right.

The rational (legal) mind is usually lost in a labyrinth of reasonings ending in either right or wrong inferences, but can’t ascertain a moral truth as self-evident. Only the intuitive mind can discern right from wrong with certainty. This war is simply not right.

World War II and the American Civil War were justified as valid exceptions to the general rule of the evil of war. A rational mind fixed on the ideology of pacifism would consider such valid exception as subjective and arbitrary. However, the intuitive mind would see the truth of the lesser of two evils to justify the valid exception of a just war. Israel’s vengeful retribution for the October 7 terrorist attack is not a valid exception to justify the evil of war. This war is simply not right.

Only a Adept of the fifth initiation, a Master of Wisdom and Compassion, can ascertain truth with perfect intuition. All spiritual aspirants, disciples and initiates under the 5th degree are in the process of calibrating their intuitive sense in a trial and error (quality improvement) process until perfection is attained. That’s why the Master’s viewpoint is useful as a reference, until we can directly see the truth.

The planetary spiritual Hierarchy approved the just war of the Forces of Light against Fascism from 1939 through 1945, culminating in the creation of the United Nations. However, the spiritual Hierarchy did not approve the creation of the state of Israel in land stolen from the Palestinians. Today, we are facing the consequence of this initial fatal error of the United Nations, further flawed by the veto power of its Security Council opposing the liberation of Palestine. The supremacist racial agenda of the Zionists in Palestine is wrong, as evidenced by the greater than 100:1 exchange rate of civilians casualties since the creation of the state of Israel. That’s why this war is simply not right.

May we recite the Gayatri every sunrise, and constantly work, to the best of our ability, to seal the door where evil dwells. The evil of Zionism, and its consequence, barbaric acts of terrorism by Hamas, must be defeated by “the unconquerable nature of goodness and the inevitability of the ultimate triumph of good.”

The Gayatri

O Thou Who givest sustenance to the universe,
From Whom all things proceed,
To Whom all things return,
Unveil to us the face of the true Spiritual Sun
Hidden by a disc of golden Light
That we may know the Truth And do our whole duty
As we journey to Thy sacred feet.

The Great Invocation

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into the minds of men.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into the hearts of men.
May Christ* return to Earth.

From the centre where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide the little wills of men –
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the centre which we call the race of men
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

*Many religions believe in a World Teacher, a “Coming One”, knowing him under such names
as the Lord Maitreya, the Imam Mahdi, the Kalki Avatar and the Bodhisattva. These terms are
sometimes used in versions of the Great Invocation for people of specific faiths.

---

The United States Must Stop Military Aid to Israel

The United States must not approve military aid package to Israel as it pummels Palestinian civilians, most of them refugees and children.

The US is planning to transfer $320 million worth of precision-guided bomb equipment to Israel, according to three people familiar with the matter, amid Israel’s aerial bombardment of Gaza as part of its war on Hamas.

The sale of the Spice Family Gliding Bomb Assemblies – a type of precision bomb kit that can turn unguided bombs into GPS-guided munitions – to Israel was approved by the relevant US congressional committees several months ago, before Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 and sparked a war, one of the sources said.

But the State Department did not formally notify congressional leaders that the transfer was moving forward until October 31, according to the sources and a formal notification reviewed by CNN.

US plans to transfer $320 million in precision bomb equipment to Israel in sale approved earlier this year | CNN Politics

The stock prices of weapons manufacturers have skyrocketed over the recent period and continue to rise as Israel bombards Gaza. These are obscene profits of the US Industrial Military Complex.

In the immediate aftermath of the Israel-Hamas War, shares of military contractors spiked as both institutional and retail investors bought in, according to VandaTrack research.

The iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF, which tracks companies including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, has surged by about 7% since the initial attacks on Israel earlier this month.

What the Israel-Hamas war means for defense stocks | CNN Business

It is imperative for the United States to uphold its responsibilities under International humanitarian law and human rights law, along with its commitments outlined in the declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas. By doing so, the nation would demonstrate its unwavering dedication to promoting justice and protecting the well-being of all.

---

Political Zionism Is Racism

Anti Zionism Is NOT Anti Semitism

---

An invited essay

A Plea: Please Don’t Look Away. We Are Not Powerless.

Today like every day, we are seeing the horrible traumas of life and death in the multiple areas of conflict around the globe. And they are not decreasing. There are those whose loved ones are far away from them and are suffering this pain of war and famine whilst they themselves remain safe. Their worry is beyond belief. Then there is us, we who just watch. We do not know the names; we do not know the faces. But we see them, and we hear them, and we know this is Not Right. This is not the kind of world we want to live in.

All over the world, hearts are breaking, lives are taken, for nothing. For an idea. That you and I are separate. That you are wrong, and I am right. That we are not one human race.

But please don’t look away. We are not powerless. Our power, first and foremost, is in our steadfastness and peace. Please do not lose your peace. Please do not let the virus of rage, hate and sorrow overtake you.

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh once said: “Our enemy is never another person. Our enemy is the wrong perceptions within him. When a doctor sees a person who is suffering, he tries to identify the sickness within the patient and remove it. He doesn’t try to kill his patient. The role of the doctor is to cure the illness which is within.”

But how do we cure the extreme illness of hate, fear and separation that has infected our planet, which overtakes us and our nations? The cure has to begin with me. It has to sincerely begin with me, here and now, in my own life. Every human being is a cell in the planetary being. We need to make our cells healthy. Only our peace and deep understanding will put out the fire of the virus raging within. Hate and anger is an enormous waste of energy, an illness in itself. We hold it at a distance.

Then, as His Holiness the Dalai Lama said: “Don’t just pray; do something.” There are, thankfully, a multitude of groups, organizations and individuals doing something to right the wrongness in the world in every kind of way.

So, we are not powerless. We can all do something. If we ourselves are suffering ill health, overwhelment or busyness, we can know that taking good care of ourselves and those around us, is doing something.

But if we have any time and space in our minds, it behoves all of us to not look away, to do something, any little thing. It begins with understanding and awakening from our self-focussed little lives into the greater whole.

 Do we know what is going on, and why? Do we know what other human beings are enduring? History never begins yesterday. Everyone can find an unbiased, easily-understood source about any given event in history.  Even one, clear source of information can help us understand. We will never find this through popular media. Please question and question again your sources. Please understand the narrative you are hearing, and why. When we put true information to our own hearts, we can see how to act.

Some people say the old world is dying and the new is being born. This, then, is surely the time to act. There are voices being heard in the thousands all over the world. This is not political. This is: Just Stop the Killing. Stop the Wars. Give Peace a Chance. Now.

We can join with and talk to people; we can write a letter; we can speak the truth. We don’t even need to elucidate who is good and who is evil. How often the enemy is within, within ourselves, within our own borders? Do we need to see enemies everywhere? We need to transform the anger, rage, and sorrow within ourselves to positive action of any kind.

At the very least, and yet this is very great, we can light a candle, send up and out a hope and a prayer and a thought for the suffering. Once a day, once a week, once a month. “We know you are there, and you are not forgotten.” Mother Theresa said, “We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.”

So please do not look away. Not from the facts and truth about the world, about ourselves and what is being done in our name, the human race. Those out there need to know, “Your suffering is my suffering. We hear you and we see you.”

So we are not powerless. As for those perpetrating the killing: Stop it.  Listen to us. You are infected. You will never, ever be well this way. With every human life you take, you are killing a part of yourself, you are killing our beautiful planet.  You will never ever have peace. Who are you anyway? A killing machine? You are a human being, with divine potential. Give up this drug of hate and violence. Lay down your arms. Sit with us.

So please, world, do not look away.

We can hold their suffering in our hearts. And raise our candles high, so we don’t stay dark against the night.  And not just pray, do something.

Alexandra Ratcliffe (meditator, peace activist, educator in English, History, Government and Politics). Revised 4 DEC 2023

---

---

What, then, would an UN-norm-based position look like? For what would we work if we were true to our rhetorical admonitions about human rights and equality for all, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, protection of the vulnerable, and empowerment for rights-holders, all under the rule of law? The answer, I believe, is simple—if we have the clarity to see beyond the propagandistic smokescreens that distort the vision of justice to which we are sworn, the courage to abandon fear and deference to powerful states, and the will to truly take up the banner of human rights and peace. To be sure, this is a long-term project and a steep climb. But we must begin now or surrender to unspeakable horror. I see ten essential points: 

• Legitimate action: First, we in the UN must abandon the failed (and largely disingenuous) Oslo paradigm, its illusory two-state solution, its impotent and complicit Quartet, and its subjugation of international law to the dictates of presumed political expediency. Our positions must be unapologetically based on international human rights and international law.   

• Clarity of Vision: We must stop the pretense that this is simply a conflict over land or religion between two warring parties and admit the reality of the situation in which a disproportionately powerful state is colonizing, persecuting, and dispossessing an indigenous population on the basis of their ethnicity.  

• One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dismantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.   

• Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.  

• Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied territories, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.  

• Truth and Justice: We must call for a transitional justice process, making full use of decades of accumulated UN investigations, enquiries, and reports, to document the truth, and to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, redress for all victims, and remedies for documented injustices.

• Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.  

• Disarmament: We must advocate for the removal and destruction of Israel’s massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, lest the conflict lead to the total destruction of the region and, possibly, beyond.   

• Mediation: We must recognize that the US and other western powers are in fact not credible mediators, but rather actual parties to the conflict who are complicit with Israel in the violation of Palestinian rights, and we must engage them as such.  

• Solidarity: We must open our doors (and the doors of the SG) wide to the legions of Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian human rights defenders who are standing in solidarity with the people of Palestine and their human rights and stop the unconstrained flow of Israel lobbyists to the offices of UN leaders, where they advocate for continued war, persecution, apartheid, and impunity, and smear our human rights defenders for their principled defense of Palestinian rights.  

This will take years to achieve, and western powers will fight us every step of the way, so we must be steadfast. In the immediate term, we must work for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the longstanding siege on Gaza, stand up against the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (and elsewhere), document the genocidal assault in Gaza, help to bring massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the Palestinians, take care of our traumatized colleagues and their families, and fight like hell for a principled approach in the UN’s political offices.  

Craig Mokhiber, former Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

---

Craig Mokshiber — who has investigated human rights in Palestine since the 1980s, lived in Gaza as a UN human rights advisor in the 1990s, and carried out several human rights missions to the country before and since — meets all the criteria for membership in the New Group of World Servers. Furthermore, in his official capacity as a UN human rights advisor, he has worked through the genocides against the Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, the Yazidi, and the Rohingya. 

As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, he knows well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. Still, he concludes that “the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate. In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules.” 

In his October 27, 2023 letter of resignation, after 28 years of service in the UN system, he further asserts: “This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What’s more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations “to ensure respect” for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel’s atrocities.”  

Mr. Mokhiber’s wise counsel must be heeded. Of course, as a human rights advocate, he also uncompromisingly condemns the abhorrent Hamas terrorist acts of October 7. All violators of human rights should be held accountable, as he has publicly stated in a recent interview.

The planetary spiritual Hierarchy is not an esoteric organization disengaged from the problems of humanity. To the contrary, the spiritual Hierarchy does inspire world servers in the field of politics to work on behalf of right human relations, goodwill and peace. Thus, we must strengthen the hands of this world server and support his inspired leadership.  

---

---

Speaking Truth to Power:
The Path to Atonement

High Commissioner, I came to this Organization first in the 1980s, because I found in it a principled, norm-based institution that was squarely on the side of human rights, including in cases where the powerful US, UK, and Europe were not on our side. While my own government, its subsidiarity institutions, and much of the US media were still supporting or justifying South African apartheid, Israeli oppression, and Central American death squads, the UN was standing up for the oppressed peoples of those lands. We had international law on our side. We had human rights on our side. We had principles on our side. Our authority was rooted in our integrity. But no more. 

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures. It is a stunning historic irony that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the same year that the Nakba was perpetrated against the Palestinian people. As we commemorate the 75^th Anniversary of the UDHR, we would do well to abandon the old cliché that the UDHR was born out of the atrocities that proceeded it, and to admit that it was born alongside one of the most atrocious genocides of the 20^th Century, that of the destruction of Palestine. In some sense, the framers were promising human rights to everyone, except the Palestinian people. And let us remember as well, that the UN itself carries the original sin of helping to facilitate the dispossession of the Palestinian people by ratifying the European settler colonial project that seized Palestinian land and turned it over to the colonists. We have much for which to atone.  But the path to atonement is clear. We have much to learn from the principled stance taken in cities around the world in recent days, as masses of people stand up against the genocide, even at risk of beatings and arrest. Palestinians and their allies, human rights defenders of every stripe, Christian and Muslim organizations, and progressive Jewish voices saying, “not in our name”, are all leading the way. All we have to do is to follow them. 

Craig Mokhiber, former Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

---

An Iron-Fisted, Autocratic World View

In recent months, Beijing has promoted its alternative model across hefty policy documents and new “global initiatives,” as well as speeches, diplomatic meetings, forums and international gatherings large and small — as it aims to win support across the world.

For many observers, this campaign has raised concern that a world modeled on Beijing’s rules is also one where features of its iron-fisted, autocratic rule — like heavy surveillance, censorship and political repression — could become globally accepted practices.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/china/china-xi-jinping-world-order-intl-hnk/index.html

The Zionist Anti Defamation League’s
Autocratic World View Rules the US Congress

When House Republicans and a solid bloc of Democrats banded together this week to censure Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, for her statements about the Israel-Gaza war, they homed in on her embrace and defense of one pro-Palestinian slogan they called unacceptable: “from the river to the sea.”

In a post on X this week, the A.D.L., a Jewish advocacy group that fights antisemitism and discrimination, wrote: “‘From the River to the Sea’ is a Hamas call to annihilate Israel,” adding that “claiming it is a rally of coexistence gives cover to terror.”

Many Palestinians have been dismayed over the outrage about the slogan, which they regard as the result of an orchestrated effort by groups like the A.D.L. to impugn the motives of Palestinians as a means of undermining their cause of statehood and silencing them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html

Ms. Tlaib has rightfully defended her support of the pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea” as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”

The phrase “from the river to the sea” — or in Arabic, “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” — dates to the dawn of the Palestinian nationalist movement in the early 1960s … as a call for returning to the borders under British control of Palestine, where Jews and Arabs had both lived before the creation of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948.

The slogan reflects the geography of that original claim: Israel spans the narrow stretch of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. For many Palestinians, the phrase now has a dual meaning, representing their desire for a right of return to the towns and villages from which their families were expelled in 1948, as well as their hope for an independent Palestinian state, incorporating the West Bank, which abuts the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip, which hugs the coastline of the Mediterranean.

But the phrase has also been adopted over the years by Hamas, which calls for the annihilation of Israel, taking on a darker meaning that has long shaped the way in which it is received.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html

Therefore, Beijing, the A.D.L., the G.O.P. (Republican) delegation (minus 4), as well as 22 Democrats compromised by Zionist interest in the US House of Representatives, share the same iron-fisted, autocratic world view. Accordingly, there is no room for dissent on dogmas pronounced by A.D.L..

Tlaib will become the second Muslim-American woman in Congress to be formally admonished this year for her criticism of Israel. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was removed in February from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for similar comments she made about Israel.

https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-censure-resolution-tlaib-8085189047a4c40f2d44ada4604aa076

The US Congress, and the public opinion in the US, must be set free from dogmas imposed by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, and this includes the A.D.L. and N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) currently controlling the political decisions in the United States.

---

---

From the River to the Sea
to Fulfill All Righteousness

The first recorded utterance of the Christ was spoken to His mother (the symbol of the substance aspect of divinity) when He said: “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” That business, related by Him to the first divine aspect, the Monad or Father aspect, was the fulfilment of purpose and the carrying out of the intention, the will and the purpose of God. His second utterance came at the time of the Baptism in Jordan when He said to John, the Baptist: “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” Esoteric Astrology, p. 582

The message of the birth of Christ rings ever new but is not today understood. The emphasis during the Aquarian Age, the age into which we are fast entering, will shift away from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, and from the infant Savior to the Risen Christ. … The ancient story of the Birth will become universalized and be seen as the story of every disciple and initiate who takes the first initiation and in his time and place becomes a server and a light bearer. … Then followed, as we are told in the New Testament, a cycle of thirty years wherein all we know is that the infant Jesus grew to manhood and could then take the second initiation, the Baptism in Jordan, and begin His public service. -The Destiny of the Nations. pp. 149-50

Alice A. Bailey

So, the quote above may provide a key to the imminent reappearance of the Christ in this dawning Aquarian Age. The phrase “from the river to the sea” may also mean that until Humanity is able to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Christ may not reappear on Earth.

The Aquarian Messiah

It may interest you to know that the Christ has not yet decided what type of physical vehicle He will employ should He take physical form and work definitely upon the physical plane. He waits to see what nation or group of nations do the most work, and the most convincing work, in preparation for His reappearance. He will not, however, take a Jewish body as He did before, for the Jews have forfeited that privilege. The Messiah for Whom they wait will be one of Christ’s senior disciples, but it will not be, as originally intended, the Christ. Symbolically, the Jews represent (from the point of view of the Hierarchy) that from which all Masters of the Wisdom and Lords of Compassion emerge: materialism, cruelty and a spiritual conservatism, so that today they live in Old Testament times and are [Page 706] under the domination of the separative, selfish, lower concrete mind.

But their opportunity will come again, and they may change all this when the fires of suffering at last succeed in purifying them and burning away their ancient crystallization, thus liberating them to the extent that they can recognize their Messiah, Who will not, however, be the world Messiah. The Jews need humility more than any other nation. By humility they may learn something of value as well as a needed sense of proportion. They are dear to the heart of the Christ for—in the performance of His greatest work—He chose a Jewish body, but their materialism and their repudiation of spiritual opportunity has negated His use of their racial type again. It would provide too great a handicap. The probability is that the Master Jesus will assume (under instruction from the Christ) the part of the Messiah.

The Rays and the Initiations by Alice A. Bailey

---

Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitism

Calling out Israel’s brutality in Gaza is the right and duty of all men and women of goodwill throughout the world. Israel’s inhumane and criminal response in Gaza is creating more antisemitism worldwide than the terrorist attack of Hamas on October 7.

---

---

---

Israeli officials, facing criticism over the high civilian death toll in their military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, have invoked historical precedents to justify their actions. They have referenced past Western military actions in urban areas, ranging from World War II to the post-9/11 wars against terrorism. Israeli officials argue that it is impossible to defeat Hamas without causing harm to innocent people, and they believe Americans and their allies should understand this reality [Source: The New York Times]. We strongly differ.

---

Q: Balancing military advantage against injury to noncombatants. in warfare

A: In warfare, the principles of distinction and proportionality play a significant role in balancing military advantage against injury to noncombatants.

• Distinction: This principle requires parties in an armed conflict to differentiate between combatants and noncombatants. It is unlawful to target noncombatants, which includes civilians, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war.
• Proportionality: This principle forbids attacks that may cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

However, these principles often come into conflict during warfare. For instance, a high-value target may be located in a densely populated area. Striking such a target might bring significant military advantage but at the cost of civilian casualties.

Assessing military advantage involves considering the value of the target, its contribution to enemy capabilities, and its significance in the broader context of the war. At the same time, minimizing harm to noncombatants involves not only avoiding targeting them directly but also taking all feasible precautions to protect them from the effects of attacks on military targets.

This balance is difficult to maintain and can lead to controversial actions and decisions, especially when the value of the military target is high. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers and is often a subject of intense debate in the context of international humanitarian law.

Source: International Committee of the Red Cross
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/customary-ihl-database

In 2016, the department’s legal office circulated a memo that said U.S. officials could be found guilty of war crimes for selling bombs to Saudi Arabia that were being used in its war in Yemen, in which airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition were resulting in mass civilian casualties.

“The Israeli strikes we’ve seen so far should be raising serious questions for people at the State Department about how U.S. weapons are being used,” said Brian Finucane, a recent State Department lawyer who is a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group.

The Israeli defense ministry said it had dropped at least 10,000 munitions as of Nov. 1, in three and a half weeks of war. By contrast, the U.S. military dropped about 2,000 to 3,000 munitions per month during the most intense combat operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria from 2015 to 2017, according to a report by the RAND Corporation. Only in one month, in the battle for Raqqa in August 2017, did that number hit 5,000.

“The pace of bombing in Gaza is off the charts,” Mr. Finucane said. “The U.S. engaged in heavy bombing of Raqqa and Mosul. It was heavily regulated, but even then, there were lots of civilian casualties.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/politics/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-civilians.html

---

When it comes to the responsibility of nations selling weapons to another nation involved in war crimes that result in civilian casualties, it is a complex and debated topic. The extent of responsibility can vary depending on factors such as the knowledge of the buyer’s intentions, the existence of arms control agreements, and the geopolitical context.

Some key points to consider:

1. Arms export regulations: Many countries have regulations in place governing the sale and transfer of weapons. These regulations often include provisions to ensure that weapons are not used to commit human rights abuses or war crimes. However, enforcement and adherence to these regulations can vary.
   
2. Knowledge and intent: If a nation selling weapons has knowledge or strong indications that the buyer intends to use them to commit war crimes or harm civilians, they could be seen as complicit in those actions. In such cases, the responsibility of the seller may be called into question.
   
3. Arms control agreements: International agreements, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, aim to regulate and control the global arms trade to prevent illicit transfers and reduce the risk of human rights abuses. However, not all countries are party to such agreements, and compliance can be inconsistent.
   
4. Geopolitical considerations: The geopolitical dynamics and strategic interests of nations can influence their decisions regarding arms sales. Sometimes, political alliances or economic considerations may take precedence over concerns about potential misuse of the weapons sold.
   

Determining legal and moral responsibility can be challenging and requires careful examination of specific circumstances and international law.

Sources:

• The New York Times: Hamas Hostages Under Scrutiny Over Gaza, Israel Points to Civilian Toll of U.S. Wars
• Arms Trade Treaty

---

Mr. Paul, the former State Department official, was a longtime employee in the agency’s political-military bureau, which handles weapons sales, until last month, when he resigned because of what he said was immoral U.S. support and lethal aid for Israel’s bombings in Gaza. Mr. Paul said there has been no real discussion within the administration about the use of American weapons in the strikes killing civilians and no way to influence policy on that from the inside.

He added that “in practice and in legal interpretation, there has not been a legal standard established for what constitutes misuse of U.S. weapons.”

While Mr. Blinken has said Israel should do all it can to minimize civilian casualties, the department has so far refrained from looking into any possible war crimes by Israel.

On Oct. 20, Mr. Blinken said “there will be plenty of time to make assessments about how these operations were conducted.” Last Wednesday, after the mass deaths in Jabaliya, Matthew Miller, the department spokesman, avoided answering questions on whether a process was underway, saying only, “It is not an assessment that we are making now.”

The State Department declined requests for an interview on this subject.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/07/us/politics/israel-gaza-war-death-toll-civilians.html

---

Brief Contrast of the Palestinian and the Ukrainian Situations

The Iron Dome system provided to Israel is a defensive mechanism designed to intercept incoming rocket attacks. It’s justifiably meant to protect Israeli civilians from rocket fire, primarily from Gaza. However, offensive weapons provided to Israel have been used in operations against Hamas, which have resulted in excessive Palestinian civilian casualties, mostly women and children. The high civilian death toll in Gaza is unacceptable and disproportionate to the military advantage gained in such operations.

Both Ukraine and Palestine face military actions from more powerful neighbors—Russia and Israel, respectively. In Ukraine, the conflict with Russia has also resulted in numerous civilian casualties, mostly Ukrainians, but the nature of the conflict—conventional warfare between two state armies—differs from the asymmetric warfare in Gaza.

The threats faced by Ukraine and Palestine are both severe but differ in nature. Ukraine faces the threat of losing its sovereignty due to Russian aggression. In contrast, the Palestinian situation is characterized as facing threats related to their displacement and its right of self-determination, which would amount to a form of ethnic cleansing.

Putting aside the disputed occupation of Palestine by Israel, the selling of weapons for self-defense to Israel would be morally justified. However, selling arms to Israel for ethnic cleansing purposes — the implicit purpose of Netanyahu in Gaza — would amount to being complicit to war crimes.

1. Self-Defense: The right to self-defense is recognized under international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Providing weapons to Israel or Ukraine for their self-defense against armed attacks aligns with this principle.
   
2. Occupation: The situations in Ukraine and Palestine are both characterized by occupation, but they are quite different in nature. Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine has been widely condemned as a violation of international law. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meanwhile, involves disputed territories and issues of statehood that have persisted for decades.
   
3. Ethnic Cleansing: Accusations of ethnic cleansing, such as those leveled against the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Gaza, are extremely serious. Ethnic cleansing is recognized as a crime against humanity under international law. If a state knowingly provides weapons used for such purposes, it could potentially be seen as complicit in those crimes.
   
4. Complicity in War Crimes: Under international law, particularly the Arms Trade Treaty, states are obliged not to transfer arms where there is a clear risk those arms might be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. If weapons sold to any country are used to commit war crimes, the selling country could face accusations of complicity.
   

A more stringent control over weapon sales to Israel and greater emphasis on diplomatic solutions to the conflict is warranted. An active role by the international community, including the United Nations, the European Union, and influential nations, can help facilitate dialogue and negotiations, apply pressure where necessary, and provide support for peace-building initiatives. A focus on human rights is crucial. Any approach should prioritize the protection of civilians, the right to self-determination, and other fundamental human rights as outlined in international law.

Sources:

• United Nations Charter
• Arms Trade Treaty
• International Committee of the Red Cross – War Crimes

---

Four weeks ago, Israel began its military campaign to defeat Hamas, in retaliation for the attack on Oct. 7 that killed more than 1,400 people, kidnapped some 240 others and destroyed a fundamental sense of security for all Israelis. Israel has a right to defend itself against this threat at its border, and the United States, its closest ally, has rightly pledged to stand by its side until that sense of security is restored.

NYT Editorial

Not true. It’s not a military campaign in retaliation, but a brutal vengeful response in violation of international law. Which border does the NYT editorial refer to, pre or post 1967? The right to a “fundamental sense of security” pertains both the Jewish people worldwide and to the Palestinian people in their own land. No exceptionalism should implicitly justify war crimes.

This situation makes Israel’s fight against Hamas exceptionally difficult. As a liberal democracy, the only one in the Middle East, Israel has made a commitment under international law to protect Palestinian civilians while pursuing its military objectives. While it is true that Hamas has made no such commitment, Israel holds itself to a different, higher standard. It cannot allow anger and the desire for vengeance to undermine its moral obligations.

NYT Editorial

Not true. Currently, Israel is not a liberal democracy but an authoritarian regime turned against its own democratic institutions by a coalition of extreme right zealots, led by Netanyahu, illegally expanding its settlements in the West Bank, and undermining a two-state compromise to the Zionist occupation of Palestine. The NYT editorial ignores that crimes of war have already been committed — before, on, and after October 7 — and for which terrorists on both sides should be held accountable. There is a moral equivalence for killing children, on both sides.

After weeks of airstrikes by Israel and the continued firing of rockets by Hamas, civilians in Gaza have paid a grave price. Thousands have lost their lives or suffered serious injuries. As reporters for The Times detailed, Gazans under siege “say there is a surge of severely injured children entering hospitals, doctors operating without anesthesia and morgues overflowing with bodies.” There are shortages of food, water and fuel needed to power everything from desalination plants to generators.

NYT Editorial

Not true. Civilians in Gaza have not paid a “grave price,” but rather, they have been slaughtered in an inhumane and criminal retribution campaign of collective punishment, reminiscing the ethnic cleansing of a wrathful Jehovah in Canaan centuries ago.

That is why so many of Israel’s allies, including President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have called for a humanitarian pause to see to the urgent and immediate needs of civilians. … While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far resisted them, those calls have grown louder and more insistent after Israel’s recent bombardment of the Jabaliya neighborhood in Gaza, which Israel said targeted Hamas militants located there. UNICEF, a children’s aid organization, described the damage as “horrific and appalling,” and it said in a statement that the attacks follow weeks of bombardment “that have reportedly resulted in more than 3,500 children killed.”

NYT Editorial

Not true. A “humanitarian pause” is necessary but not sufficient. Netanyahu must resign to prevent a wider military conflagration in the Middle East. The United States Middle-East policy should not be determined by a foreign regime. The United States government must diligently work to prevent a worldwide conflict. Abusing its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to cover for crimes of war is not the way to accomplish it.

---

Anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism

I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it

Kenneth Stern

Kenneth Stern | The Guardian

---

“All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
–Adolph S. Ochs

Protesters mass outside Netanyahu’s house as anger grows

---

The United Nations, founded 78 years ago, cannot remain neutral today as civilian lives — women and children — are massacred in Gaza in revenge for the brutal and inhumane acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians on October 7. No level of cruelty can be used to measure the relative worth of, or the exchange rate for, another human life. No human life is worth more than another.

WHEREAS, the United Nations must stand for respect of international law, including the right of self-defense, and the law of war;

WHEREAS, all acts of terrorism against unarmed civilian populations, such as those of October 7, are condemned as unjustifiable and illegal;

WHEREAS, the prevention and defense against the acts of terrorism of October 7 was a neglected responsibility of the Israel Defence Forces;

WHEREAS, the loss of civilian life by inhumane acts of terrorists does not justify the reprisal of collective death punishment, a crime of war;

WHEREAS, the ongoing Israel-Gaza war has resulted in considerable loss of life and property, causing humanitarian crises and straining international relations;

WHEREAS, a ceasefire offers an immediate cessation of hostilities, enabling humanitarian relief efforts to reach those most in need;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, any ceasefire agreement

• should not only involve the cessation of hostilities,
• but also the unconditional release of all civilian hostages,
• as well as steps towards addressing the root causes of the conflict,
  • including negotiations over key issues like the status of Jerusalem,
  • the rights of Palestinian refugees, and
  • the borders of a Palestinian state in recognition of its inalienable right of self-determination.

---

---

Q: if you have a cage with wild and hungry animals in a zoo, and the guards are unable to secure the gates of the cage broken wide open by the restless beasts, resulting in the brutal death a hundreds of visitors, who are responsible for the deaths, the wild animals or the guards?

A: In such a tragic scenario, the responsibility would likely be attributed to the zoo authorities, which includes the guards. While the animals are acting on their instincts and don’t have the same understanding of right and wrong as humans, the zoo authorities are expected to ensure the safety of both the animals and visitors. If the gates are not secured properly, leading to an incident, it would indicate negligence on their part. A thorough investigation would be needed to determine the exact circumstances and assign responsibility.

Q: if a child is chronically abused and tortured, to the point that rehabilitation is impossible, and only killing him, as an adult terrorist behaving like a beast, is a legitimate act of self-defense, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the hideous acts: i) the individual terrorist, ii) the structural injustices creating the conditions of abuse and torture, or iii) the aggrieved civil community out of which this youth emerged as a disfigured human with subhuman instincts?

A: This is a deeply complex and sensitive issue, touching on aspects of psychology, sociology, justice, and ethics. In such a situation, responsibility may not be attributed to a single entity, but rather distributed across multiple factors:

1. The individual terrorist: While it’s true that the individual committed the act, their ability to differentiate between right and wrong may have been severely compromised due to chronic abuse and torture. However, this doesn’t absolve them completely, as they are still the direct agents of their actions.
   
2. Structural injustices: These play a significant role in creating conditions conducive for such behavior. If the abuse and torture were a result of systemic failures, those systems bear a share of the responsibility.
   
3. The community: Communities, particularly those that may have enabled or ignored the abuse, also hold some responsibility. However, it’s crucial to remember that communities are often victims themselves, suffering from the consequences of the individual’s actions.
   
4. Rehabilitation systems: If rehabilitation was deemed impossible, it might indicate a failure of the systems put in place to rehabilitate such individuals.

In sum, the responsibility is shared and complex. It underscores the importance of proactive measures to prevent abuse, address structural injustices, and provide effective rehabilitation methods.

Q: should the relatives of the terrorist be held responsible, even if they do not support acts of terrorism? Should such potential responsibility amount to a death sentence of the relatives?

R: The responsibility primarily lies with the individual and the group that influenced their radicalization.

In terms of human rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) emphasizes that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights must be pursued together. This implies that punishing a whole family for the actions of one member would likely be a violation of their human rights.

---

The current “exchange rate” of civilian deaths
in the ongoing Israeli-Hamas War

Background

The question of whether one human life can be considered more valuable than another is a deeply complex and contentious issue in ethics.

Many ethical systems, including deontology, virtue ethics, and rights-based ethics, argue that all human lives have equal inherent worth. These systems would typically reject the idea that one life could be more valuable than another. They emphasize principles such as dignity, respect for persons, and equal rights, which are incompatible with valuing some lives more than others.

However, consequentialist theories like utilitarianism assess actions based on their outcomes, and in some situations, these theories might lead to the conclusion that it’s morally permissible or even obligatory to prioritize some lives over others if doing so leads to the greatest overall good.

Relativism, which holds that moral truths are relative to cultural or individual perspectives, might also allow for the possibility that some lives are valued more than others in certain contexts.

So, while many ethical theories would argue against considering one life more valuable than another, it’s not an absolute rule across all ethical systems. It’s also important to remember that ethics is a field of ongoing debate and discussion, and different people may interpret and apply these theories in different ways.

---

In consequentialism, particularly in its most common form known as Utilitarianism, the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. If the overall happiness or welfare is increased, then the action can be considered morally right, even if it involves harm to some individuals.

Applying this framework to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, a consequentialist might argue that while the bombings caused immense suffering and loss of life, they ultimately led to the end of the war, which prevented further loss of life and suffering on a potentially larger scale.

However, this perspective is highly controversial. Critics would point out the immense human cost of the bombings, which killed an estimated 200,000 people, many of them civilians, and caused long-term health and environmental damage. They may argue that such actions are never justifiable, regardless of their outcomes, and that alternative actions should have been pursued.

It’s also important to note that different forms of consequentialism might reach different conclusions. For example, rule consequentialism, which considers the consequences of a rule or policy rather than individual actions, might argue against the use of nuclear weapons due to the potential for widespread and indiscriminate harm.

Ethics is a complex field, and different ethical theories often lead to different, sometimes conflicting, moral judgments. It’s also a deeply personal field, and individuals may weigh the importance of different ethical principles differently based on their own values and beliefs.

---

Both from an ethical and humanistic perspective, the loss of a civilian life due to terrorism and the loss of a civilian life due to collateral damage in a retaliatory attack are tragic and deeply regrettable.

In the eyes of most ethical theories, all human lives have equal inherent worth. Neither act of violence makes one life more valuable or worthy than the other. In both scenarios, innocent lives have been lost, which is a profound tragedy.

Deontological ethics, for example, would argue that both acts are morally wrong because they involve the intentional or negligent killing of innocent people, which violates the principle of respect for persons.

Consequentialist theories like utilitarianism would also view both acts as morally problematic because they result in suffering and loss of life. Although consequentialists sometimes justify harm to individuals if it leads to a greater overall good, many would argue that the large-scale harm caused by terrorism and retaliatory attacks cannot be justified.

Rights-based ethics would also condemn both acts, as they violate the basic rights of the individuals who are killed.

In sum, while different ethical theories may approach these issues in different ways, none would typically argue that one civilian life is worthier than another based on the circumstances of their death. It’s important to remember that each life lost in such situations is a tragedy, and efforts should be focused on preventing such losses in the first place.

---

Data

The figures below represent the number of Palestinians and Israelis who were killed since 2008 in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel in the context of the occupation and conflict.

Palestinian fatalities: 6,407

Israeli fatalities: 308

---

Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #15
(21 October 2023)

---

Analysis and Conclusion

• What is proportional retaliation?
• What is an acceptable “exchange rate” for civilian casualties in war?
• When enough is enough?

Proportional retaliation in war refers to the principle that a state’s response to an act of aggression should not exceed the severity of the initial attack. It is rooted in the Just War Theory, a set of criteria used to determine whether a war is morally justifiable.

The principle of proportionality is one of the key components of Just War Theory, alongside other concepts like just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, and last resort. Proportional retaliation aims to prevent escalations of violence and unnecessary harm, particularly to civilians.

In practice, assessing proportionality can be complex and subjective. What one party views as a proportional response, another might see as excessive or insufficient. It’s also important to note that proportionality is generally considered alongside the principle of distinction, which requires parties to a conflict to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants, and to avoid targeting the latter.

Despite these challenges, the principle of proportional retaliation remains a fundamental part of international humanitarian law, which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons.

---

Israel’s military vowed to increase its aerial bombardment of Gaza, and carried out an airstrike on what it said was a militant compound under a mosque in the occupied West Bank, as it signaled it was readying for a new phase of war against Hamas, including a potential ground operation.

CNN

---

Ethnic cleansing refers to the deliberate and systematic removal or extermination of a particular ethnic, racial, or religious group from a specific geographic area with the intent to create a region inhabited by people of a single ethnicity, race, or religion. Methods used can range from forced migration and deportation, mass killings, rape, and torture, to destruction of property and other acts of violence intended to cause physical harm or instill fear in the targeted group.

The term “ethnic cleansing” came into wide usage during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, but the practice predates the term. Some examples throughout history include the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide.

Though similar in many ways to genocide, ethnic cleansing is not officially recognized as an independent crime under international law. However, acts commonly associated with ethnic cleansing, such as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts, can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

---

I believe that if Israel rushes headlong into Gaza now to destroy Hamas — and does so without expressing a clear commitment to seek a two-state solution with the Palestinian Authority and end Jewish settlements deep in the West Bank — it will be making a grave mistake that will be devastating for Israeli interests and American interests.

It could trigger a global conflagration and explode the entire pro-American alliance structure that the United States has built in the region since Henry Kissinger engineered the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

I am talking about the Camp David peace treaty, the Oslo peace accords, the Abraham Accords and the possible normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The whole thing could go up in flames.

This is not about whether Israel has the right to retaliate against Hamas for the savage barbarism it inflicted on Israeli men, women, babies and grandparents. It surely does. This is about doing it the right way — the way that does not play into the hands of Hamas, Iran and Russia.

If Israel goes into Gaza and takes months to kill or capture every Hamas leader and soldier but does so while expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank — thereby making any two-state solution there with the more moderate Palestinian Authority impossible — there will be no legitimate Palestinian or Arab League or European or U.N. or NATO coalition that will ever be prepared to go into Gaza and take it off Israel’s hands.

That is why I believe that Israel would be much better off framing any Gaza operation as “Operation Save Our Hostages” — rather than “Operation End Hamas Once and for All” — and carrying it out, if possible, with repeated surgical strikes and special forces that can still get the Hamas leadership but also draw the brightest possible line between Gazan civilians and the Hamas dictatorship.

But if Israel feels it must reoccupy Gaza to destroy Hamas and restore its deterrence and security — I repeat — it must pair that military operation with a new commitment to pursue a two-state solution with those Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza ready to make peace with Israel.

The hour is late. I have never written a column this urgent before because I have never been more worried about how this situation could spin out of control in ways that could damage Israel irreparably, damage U.S. interests irreparably, damage Palestinians irreparably, threaten Jews everywhere and destabilize the whole world.

I beg Biden to tell Israelis this immediately — for their sake, for America’s sake, for the sake of Palestinians, for the sake of the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/opinion/biden-speech-israel-gaza.html

---

I particularly want to challenge the suggestion, more implicit than explicit, that Gazan lives matter less because many Palestinians sympathize with Hamas. People do not lose their right to life because they have odious views, and in any case, almost half of Gazans are children. Those kids in Gaza, infants included, are among the more than two million people enduring a siege and collective punishment.

Israel has suffered a horrifying terrorist attack and deserves the world’s sympathy and support, but it should not get a blank check to slaughter civilians or to deprive them of food, water and medicine. Bravo to Biden for trying to negotiate some humanitarian access to Gaza, but the challenge will be not just getting aid into Gaza but also distributing it to where it’s needed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/opinion/israel-gaza-palestine-children.html

---